<quoted text>Crime has indeed been falling. While deaths from firearms have grown from roughly 27,000 in 2000 to roughly 33,000 in 2012.Deaths from HIV/AIDS constitute a public health crisis, swinging between 15k and 22k in a 10 year window.To pretend that the prevalence of firearms in American culture hasn't contributed greatly to mortality rates seems a bit too bold a claim.Gun control in my option is really the collective assessment of how many lives are acceptable to lose, and in what context, in the balance of firearms access. It may well be that as a culture, we're comfortable with 33,000 deaths a year. I'm quite interested to see if we'll continue to remain willing to accept this cost if the numbers continue to rise as they have over the past decade.

During the same 12 year window, through efforts to reduce traffic accidents, auto mobile linked mortality has continued to fall, in a rate roughly mirroring the rise in firearms deaths (though with the drop occurring at the ladder half of the period and being much more pronounced!).

I'm not sure the argument that there are other modes of death is a valid excuse not to examine a leading cause of death in the US.

We don't discount domestic violence because drownings happen, there is no campaign to disregard child kidnappings because of pneumonia. I've never really understood pointing to other causes of death to be useful for much other than a benchmark. Or, I suppose, a bid for distraction?

If you want to talk about guns v. cars, weighing the figures side by side may help.

In 2010, 32,885 people died in car accidents. This was down 3.8% from the year before. Most people outside of the largest cities in the US drive daily. Time spent in cars is increasing. And the mortality rate is falling! With continued efforts, this should continue to fall (personally, I think more public transit is the fastest way to address this).

Guns came in at 31,000. Up from the year before, and the year before that, and most years since 2000, in a fairly straight line.

Looking at these figures, side by side, why would we not want to hold gun owners up to at least the standards of people owning and operating cars, given the similar rates of mortality and what oversight has done to curb motor vehicle deaths?

<quoted text>During the same 12 year window, through efforts to reduce traffic accidents, auto mobile linked mortality has continued to fall, in a rate roughly mirroring the rise in firearms deaths (though with the drop occurring at the ladder half of the period and being much more pronounced!).I'm not sure the argument that there are other modes of death is a valid excuse not to examine a leading cause of death in the US.We don't discount domestic violence because drownings happen, there is no campaign to disregard child kidnappings because of pneumonia. I've never really understood pointing to other causes of death to be useful for much other than a benchmark. Or, I suppose, a bid for distraction?If you want to talk about guns v. cars, weighing the figures side by side may help.In 2010, 32,885 people died in car accidents. This was down 3.8% from the year before. Most people outside of the largest cities in the US drive daily. Time spent in cars is increasing. And the mortality rate is falling! With continued efforts, this should continue to fall (personally, I think more public transit is the fastest way to address this).Guns came in at 31,000. Up from the year before, and the year before that, and most years since 2000, in a fairly straight line.Looking at these figures, side by side, why would we not want to hold gun owners up to at least the standards of people owning and operating cars, given the similar rates of mortality and what oversight has done to curb motor vehicle deaths?

<quoted text>Four words: "shall not be infringed"You continue to offer no constitutional argument.

We've spent at least three pages with several fairly well informed people explaining to you, quite patiently, that "shall not be infringed" does not mean "is without limits".

Why would this constitutional right be limitless while rights like free speech, voting or any of the other big ones have limits attached?

If you're actually interested in learning some of the basics of constitutional law, there are quite a few free lectures and programs available online. I would be delighted to bring you some, if you like!

<quoted text>We've spent at least three pages with several fairly well informed people explaining to you, quite patiently, that "shall not be infringed" does not mean "is without limits".Why would this constitutional right be limitless while rights like free speech, voting or any of the other big ones have limits attached?If you're actually interested in learning some of the basics of constitutional law, there are quite a few free lectures and programs available online. I would be delighted to bring you some, if you like!

Sorry to interrupt your cranial-rectal copulation again...

...but the limits you and the others have attempted to compare to gun limits fail in the final analysis because gun possession has been proven to be passive and victimless, making any physical restriction on possession a direct abrogation of the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

<quoted text>Yet somehow people like -tip- still believe that there can be no constitutional regulation of guns.

If you follow a strict interpretation of the constitution, there can't be. It's quite clear, shall not be infringed means you cannot regulate. However, we still practice the old act of partial people or partial citizens where we think criminals and crazies aren't complete citizens so they do not have all their constitutional rights.

<quoted text>Sorry to interrupt your cranial-rectal copulation again......but the limits you and the others have attempted to compare to gun limits fail in the final analysis because gun possession has been proven to be passive and victimless, making any physical restriction on possession a direct abrogation of the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

You're no doubt aware that there are limits placed on other constitutional rights for which the effects of violating those limits lacks a victim? I think we've trotted out obscenity charges for you, as a limit to free speech lacking a victim, as a pretty good 1:1 comparison.

Can you explain in a bit more detail why possession being a non violent crime would prevent any limits to this right. Could you give me a bit of background on rulings which might support this or other, similar rights which are similarly affected?

I really don't see the legal processes (or, the basic logic) through which your two points could be linked.

<quoted text>If you follow a strict interpretation of the constitution, there can't be. It's quite clear, shall not be infringed means you cannot regulate. However, we still practice the old act of partial people or partial citizens where we think criminals and crazies aren't complete citizens so they do not have all their constitutional rights.

The second amendment being interpreted as the right of an individual to own firearms is a pretty recent development! 2009, maybe? I'm too lazy to look it up.

If you follow a strict interpretation of the constitution, you get state administered militia and firearms in the context of those.

<quoted text>Obviously, Scalia strayed from a strict constructionist opinion on the matter.The Framers had a lot to say on the right -- in fact, necessity -- of citizens to bear arms.Never once did they mention restrictions.The Constitution is not a living, breathing document that changes with the times.It is to be changed only by Amendment.Go for it.

"The Constitution is not a living, breathing document that changes with the times.It is to be changed only by Amendment."

<Kemo wants to bang head against table at the inherent contradiction and idiocy of the above two statements>

Hey Einstein, the Framers put in the amendment provision so that the Constitution COULD keep up with the times.

<quoted text>You don't have the ability to comprehend anything beyond the first couple of words in the preamble, you're not fooling anyone.Here's a quickie from Wiki that further enhances my belief about you and your utter and complete ignorance:Many small arms are "single shot" firearms: i.e., each time a cartridge is fired, the operator must manually re-cock the firearm and load another cartridge. The classic single-barreled shotgun is a good example. A firearm that can load multiple cartridges as the firearm is re-cocked is considered a "repeating firearm" or simply a "repeater". A lever-action rifle, a pump-action shotgun, and most bolt-action rifles are good examples of repeating firearms. A firearm that automatically re-cocks and reloads the next round with each trigger pull is considered a semi-automatic or autoloading firearm.Now consider that you've appeared here very recently and all you've attempted is to belittle me while exposing every bit of your immaturity, lack of education and inability to originate a thought.At the very base, it appears that you agree with my positions on a few things, you're just a spoiled punk who likes to be argumentative without a basis.Have at it. I believe in letting one hang their buttocks out for the world to see they can't even wipe it properly.

And you do not have the ability to express a complete thought. You did not say there were no autoloading guns when the the constitution was created, you said they were all single shot.

Just because you want to take and apples to oranges comparison and turn it into applesauce and orange duck comparisons does not show a lack of my intelligence.

And of course I agree with your position on a few things, just not when you are clueless wrong. A double barrel shotgun, A clock work gun, A double barrel musket is not a single shot gun. You load and ready the gun and bu simply pulling the trigger either partial increments or multiple time, you have multiple shots available without stopping and reloading. That technology was available and in use (although not highly reliable) before and when the US constitution was created.

<quoted text>If you believe that an individual cannot be held civilly liable for wrongful death or injury regardless of whether a finding of criminal liability exists, I suggest that you look into the field of Tort Law, then come back, and tell me what you have learnedDrivel.woof

Who said anything like that? Of course someone can be held civilly liable for their actions. Just look at OJ who got off criminal charges then proceeded to lose everything in a civil court. What you are not seeing is that the civil action is brought by a citizen- not the government. The constitution bars the government from taking you rights, not the people of your society.

For someone claiming someone else doesn't understand something, you sure do appear to be confused.

<quoted text>Since you're not smart enough to hold gainful employment the odds of you affording air travel is slim to none. But, if you ever do have the opportunity to fly, as you start to board the plane, wave to a random stranger and say "Hi Jack" and see what happens.Let's test this inferior knowledge of yours.

And why would you wave to a random stranger and call him jack unless your intent is to cause a panic by the way you approached it. You failed miserably again.

And BTW, you do not need to worry about my employment, I'm wealthy enough as it is.

<quoted text>Who said anything like that? Of course someone can be held civilly liable for their actions. Just look at OJ who got off criminal charges then proceeded to lose everything in a civil court. What you are not seeing is that the civil action is brought by a citizen- not the government. The constitution bars the government from taking you rights, not the people of your society.For someone claiming someone else doesn't understand something, you sure do appear to be confused.

Maybe you should operate in reverse for a moment and look at the post that I was responding to.

<quoted text>You're no doubt aware that there are limits placed on other constitutional rights for which the effects of violating those limits lacks a victim? I think we've trotted out obscenity charges for you, as a limit to free speech lacking a victim, as a pretty good 1:1 comparison.Can you explain in a bit more detail why possession being a non violent crime would prevent any limits to this right. Could you give me a bit of background on rulings which might support this or other, similar rights which are similarly affected?I really don't see the legal processes (or, the basic logic) through which your two points could be linked.

You're as thick as a whale omelette.

From the MA Court ruling:

"While we are cognizant that unlicensed possessors of firearms may use firearms unlawfully, unlicensed possession of a firearm itself is a regulatory crime," Spina wrote. "It is passive and victimless." Spina added: "That a person possesses a firearm without a valid license does not itself pose a substantial risk that physical force against another may result. Rather, it is the unlawful use of a firearm that involves a substantial risk that physical force against another may result."

Unlawful USE -- not POSSESSION.

It is crystal clear that gun bans abrogate the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

<quoted text>Do you see what happens when you drop out of high school and then try to discuss something as complicated as the law? You really should go back to one of those race baiting, name calling threads. You are qualified to participate in those.

First, if you believe everything you read on the internet, I have an investment opportunity for you.

Second, you really need to slow down a bit and comprehend what was said. For instance, would you and someone else talking about killing a person be free speech? Would you and someone else talking about robbing a bank be free speech? Of course it would, but if that someone else ended up killing the person or robbing the bank, that someone you conspired with ended up attaching criminal liability to the product of you speech.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.